Device system and method for determining document similarities and differences

Abstract

Two documents are processed to facilitate visual mapping and comparison. These documents comprise document subsections and the subsections comprise document subsection headers associated therewith. At least one of the first document subsection headers is juxtaposed relative to an output of second document subsection headers mapping thereto, to visually emphasize a header mapping. This header mapping is established by: mapping the first document subsections relative to the second document subsections based on identifying substantial similarities therebetween, to establish a subsection mapping therebetween; and, in relation to the subsection mapping and the association between the document subsections and the subsection headers, further mapping the first document subsection headers relative to the second document subsection headers. Several closely-related devices, systems and methods for outputting information to compare at least two documents, establishing a mapping to compare at least two documents, and highlighting similar text segments, are also disclosed.

Description

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION[0001]This disclosure relates to the field of computer document processing, and particularly to enhancing the ability of a computer user to compare two or more documents and quickly understand the similarities and differences between or among these documents.[0002]There are many circumstances in today's electronic world where it is desirable to compare two or more documents with one another. Writers of all stripes frequently wish to compare one version of a document with another version of a document, to see what similarities and changes exist as between two different versions of the same document. Legal professionals often need to compare different documents to see how they differ, whether these be, for example, draft contract proposals from two or more parties, or two different patents or patent applications. Lawmakers similarly need to compare various competing proposals for legislation, and to pinpoint what is different and what is the same between or amon...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

Enables clear and accurate visualization of similarities and differences in document comparisons, improving user understanding by providing context and accurate mapping of subsections, reducing errors and enhancing navigation through structured documents.

Problems solved by technology

Lawmakers similarly need to compare various competing proposals for legislation, and to pinpoint what is different and what is the same between or among two or more often extremely lengthy and unwieldy proposals.

Thus, the user viewing the output presentation can often become confused about what was in the first document versus the second document.

Also, the comparison method itself is generally serial, front-to-back, which makes it difficult for the user to identify when text has simply been moved from one place to another.

There are no suitable statistical or similar comparison summaries of similarities and differences, either for the whole document, or for various document substructures, to aid the user in navigating over to the subsections of greatest interest.

Finally, individual subsections are not in any way “mapped” to one another before comparison, so that in deciding what to underline and what to strikeout, the computer processor's determination that something in the first document is “different” than something in the second document may be erroneous, because it is not comparing the right document subsections with one another following an appropriate subsection mapping.

This is still problematic, however, since it does not link the old location of the moved material in the first document to its new location in the second document.

If there are multiple items of text that are moved or if the documents are long documents and the text is moved far from its original location, the benefit of this feature is lost since the moves will simply get lost amidst one another or the user will have to scroll through a large segment of text to find where the original text was moved to.

However, these two windows show these two documents in clean, unmarked form, and do not in any way highlight changes as between the first and second documents.

Additionally, there is no context information outputted in conjunction with the document text that would enable the user to immediately determine where the outputted text fits in the context of the overall document structure.

Finally, individual subsections are not in any way “mapped” to one another before comparison, so that in deciding what to underline and what to strikeout, the computer processor's determination that something in the first document is “different” than something in the second document may be erroneous, because it is not comparing the right document subsections with one another following an appropriate subsection mapping.

But the comparison is even more unwieldy than an underline / strikeout comparison, and if a single word differs, it regards the entire line as differing.

The whole approach is awkward and non-intuitive at best.

First, the highlighting of similarities and differences do not occur at a word-by-word level, but appears to occur on a line-by-line or a segment-by-segment basis, and so tend to greatly overstate the degree of difference between the documents, and to greatly understate the degree of similarity between the documents. If perhaps two or three words in a ten or twelve word segment of text have been altered, Norton Utilities® File Compare will highlight the entire ten or twelve word segment as having been altered.

However, it does not actually move the output of text in the second document to match the sequencing of the text in the first document, nor does it allow for any form of active highlighting wherein the use can simply designate text in one document and find out where that same text exists in the other document.

And again, individual subsections are not in any way “mapped” to one another before comparison, so that in deciding what to mark as similar and different, the computer processor's determination that something in the first document is “different” than something in the second document may be erroneous, because it is not comparing the right document subsections with one another following an appropriate subsection mapping.

Images